5 ms·

Simply put, no. Parallel construction is a process by which otherwise inadmissible evidence can be used in court by obtaining it through an alternative lawful m

Simply put, no. Parallel construction is a process by which otherwise inadmissible evidence can be used in court by obtaining it through an alternative lawful method. i.e. DEA trailing a specific car until it leads to a drug dealer based on a tip from the NSA. The NSA charter restricts directly targeting Americans unless related to an international threat. i.e. FISA warrants ("Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"). Instances of parallel construction emerge when evidence potentially useful for a domestic investigation is incidentally uncovered. Were it to be directly targeted when the individual has had no foreign communication, it would exceed the (very broad) scope of the NSA. So it hasn't been "blown wide open". It is just that many people don't seem to particularly care about the nuances of either the NSA's charter or "Parallel construction" and throw terms around.

Zigurd 13y ago
> * It is just that many people don't seem to particularly care about the nuances of either the NSA's charter or "Parallel construction" and throw terms around.* Alternatively, "people" could be skeptical of whether parallel construction isn't about "tips" "nuances" and observing a "charter." Rather that it amounts to getting a pre-cooked investigation that you just color-by-numbers to launder domestic spying.
eliasmacpherson 13y ago
Your argument that everyone who is against it doesn't care about nuances doesn't hold any water. Your language is curious for someone who claims a nuanced understanding: "otherwise inadmissible evidence can be used in court"[1], "alternative lawful method"[2]. [1] is wrong because the evidence the NSA use for the tip, however legally or illegally it was acquired, is not used in court. Exhonerating evidence they acquired is not seen by the court. [2] if the initial acquisition is inadmissible because it's illegally acquired then the alternative evidence acquisition is fruit of the poisoned tree, and any cover up probably illegal. [1] and [2] imply the evidence acquired by the NSA and the DEA are the same evidence, and this is not the case. The DOJ are investigating "Parallel Construction". If it was obviously legitimate, they would not be.

Zigurd 13y ago

> * It is just that many people don't seem to particularly care about the nuances of either the NSA's charter or "Parallel construction" and throw terms around.* Alternatively, "people" could be skeptical of whether parallel construction isn't about "tips" "nuances" and observing a "charter." Rather that it amounts to getting a pre-cooked investigation that you just color-by-numbers to launder domestic spying.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago

Your argument that everyone who is against it doesn't care about nuances doesn't hold any water. Your language is curious for someone who claims a nuanced understanding: "otherwise inadmissible evidence can be used in court"[1], "alternative lawful method"[2]. [1] is wrong because the evidence the NSA use for the tip, however legally or illegally it was acquired, is not used in court. Exhonerating evidence they acquired is not seen by the court. [2] if the initial acquisition is inadmissible because it's illegally acquired then the alternative evidence acquisition is fruit of the poisoned tree, and any cover up probably illegal. [1] and [2] imply the evidence acquired by the NSA and the DEA are the same evidence, and this is not the case. The DOJ are investigating "Parallel Construction". If it was obviously legitimate, they would not be.